Lawsuit & Mixed Reactions On EPA's Endangerment Finding

Dec 7: The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) announced it will file suit in Federal court to overturn U.S. EPA's endangerment finding announced December 7 [See WIMS 12/7/09], on the grounds that EPA has "ignored major scientific issues, including those raised recently in the Climategate fraud scandal." [See WIMS 12/4/09]. Sam Kazman, CEI General Counsel said, “EPA is clinging for dear life to the notion that the global climate models are holding up. In reality, those models are about to sink under the growing weight of evidence that they are fabrications.”

Marlo Lewis, CEI Senior Fellow said, “Today’s decision by EPA will trigger costly and time-consuming permitting requirements for tens of thousands of previously unregulated small businesses under the Clean Air Act. A more potent Anti-Stimulus Package would be hard to imagine. The sensible solution would be for Congress to pass legislation, such as that proposed by Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee that would pre-empt the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.”

In announcing its findings, EPA said that "after a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments it has determined that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. EPA also finds that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat." EPA noted that its "findings do not in and of themselves impose any emission reduction requirements but rather allow EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed earlier this year for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation. EPA indicated that on-road vehicles contribute more than 23 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions."

EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that GHGs fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The "endangerment finding" responds to the April 2, 2007, 5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which decided the historic case about global warming (Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 05-1120), and ruled that EPA has existing authority under the Federal Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles. Under the Bush Administration, EPA had refused to regulate such gases, arguing it lacked statutory authority [See WIMS 4/2/07].

In other reactions to the EPA's findings, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) issued a statement saying, "The EPA has thoroughly reviewed the scientific literature on climate change, which spans decades of research across a breadth of disciplines and across the globe. The science is clear: global warming is real, its impacts are being felt around the world, and carbon emissions present a danger to public health and the economy worldwide. As the United Nations Climate Change Conference begins in Copenhagen today [See WIMS 12/7/09], those who fear EPA regulation of global warming pollution will find the answer in the American Clean Energy and Security Act passed by the House this year. This legislation will give businesses both certainty and flexibility, help to minimize costs to companies and consumers as we transition to clean energy, reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and stimulate investments that will create millions of clean energy jobs."

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, issued a statement saying, "The endangerment finding released today confirms what we have been told by America's top scientists and leading scientists of the world --that unchecked global warming is perilous to human health and our environment. After the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that global warming pollution is covered under the Clean Air Act, the Bush EPA laid the groundwork for this endangerment finding, which has been completed by the Obama EPA. It is now clear that if we take our responsibility seriously to protect and defend our people from this threat, the Senate has a duty to act on climate change legislation that includes major components of the work done by the Energy and Environment Committees. In light of the EPA endangerment finding, the President's appearance in Copenhagen will carry even more weight, because it shows that America is taking this issue very seriously and is moving forward."

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works issued a statement and video saying, "The Administration's endangerment finding will lead to a wave of new regulations and bureaucracy that will wreak havoc on the American economy, destroy millions of jobs, and force consumers to pay more for electricity and gasoline. This bureaucratic nightmare is based on flawed science. Lisa Jackson, Obama's EPA Administrator, admitted to me publicly that EPA based its action today in good measure on the findings of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. She told me that EPA accepted those findings without any serious, independent analysis to see whether they were true. Of course, we now have thousands of emails showing several of the UN's top scientists apparently evading laws requiring transparency, defaming scientists with opposing viewpoints, and manipulating data to fit preconceived opinions. They cooked the science. . . "

He continued saying, "I agree with Sen. Joe Lieberman, who said of climategate, "We ought to be demanding that that be cleaned up. We ought to be angry about it. The endangerment finding also will have virtually no impact on global warming. That's because India and China, two of the world's leading emitters of CO2, are left out. . . So today the American people are getting a raw deal: all cost with no benefit. Yet, the Obama Administration is moving forward anyway. . ."

Earthjustice President Trip Van Noppen issued a statement saying, "What scientists have long known is now official U.S. policy: global warming pollution is real and has dangerous impacts on public health and the environment. The Obama administration's announcement today acknowledges that our nation must move quickly and efficiently to achieve the cuts in carbon dioxide and other global warming pollution needed to stave off catastrophic climate change. The time for talking is over; now is the time for taking action. EPA has based this decision under the Clean Air Act on overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming poses a significant threat. We will look to the administration to continue along this path and take the next important step of adopting strong rules that limit global warming pollution from motor vehicles and industrial polluters. . ."

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-West Chester) issued a statement saying, "Today’s EPA announcement paves the way for Washington Democrats’ ‘cap-and-trade’ national energy tax, a bureaucratic nightmare that would make households, small businesses and family farms pay higher prices for electricity, gasoline, food and virtually every product made in America. One independent analysis determined that this national energy tax would cost our economy millions of jobs each year for the foreseeable future. What’s more, the timing of this announcement is yet another indication President Obama is preparing to unilaterally commit the United States to mandatory emissions cuts at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. If the President truly believes these job-killing mandates are in the nation’s best interests, he should slow down and first seek the advice and consent of the people’s elected representatives."

Access a release from CEI (click here). Access a release from EPA on the finding (click here). Access EPA's Endangerment website for complete information and background (click here). Access a lengthy release from Speaker Pelosi with links to related information (click here). Access the statement from Senator Boxer (click here). Access the statement from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access the statement from Representative Boehner (click here).

COP15 Copenhagen Climate Change Kick-Off & Links

Dec 7: It's finally here. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), fifteenth Conference of the Parties (COP 15) and the fifth Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP 5). The 2-week meeting will take place from December 7 to 18 2009 in the Bella Center in Copenhagen, Denmark.

The Conference marks the culmination of a two-year negotiating process in an attempt to follow-up on the "Bali Roadmap," adopted by COP 13 in December 2007. The Copenhagen meeting follows a series of recent contentious international negotiating sessions including: The G-8 and "Major Economies Forum (MEF) in L’Aquila, Italy in July [See WIMS 7/13/09]; UNFCCC meeting in Bonn, Germany in August [See WIMS 8/14/09]; the UN Climate Change Summit in New York City [See WIMS 9/24/09]; UNFCCC meeting in Bangkok (September 28 to October 9) [See WIMS 10/09/09]; UNFCCC meeting in Barcelona, Spain in November [See WIMS 11/6/09]. Most of the meetings ended in intense disagreement between developed and developing countries over the setting of appropriate mid-term target emission reductions for developed countries and the establishment of an international monetary fund to provide assistance to developing countries.

As the Copenhagen Conference begins, the latest expectation appears to be obtaining a "political" agreement with an appropriate level of detail, followed by an commitment to translate and finalize the agreement into a legally binding treaty within the first six months of 2010. Late Friday, the White House announced that President Obama who was originally scheduled to go to Copenhagen on December 9, will now be attending during the important closing sessions when other world leaders will be in attendance on December 18.

According to a release from UNFCCC, "The highly anticipated conference marks an historic turning point on how the world confronts climate change, an issue with profound implications for the health and prosperity of all people." Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen announced that 110 heads of state and government will attend the conference at its conclusion. The meeting brings together the 193 Parties to the UNFCCC and the 189 Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. More than 15,000 participants, including government delegates and representatives from business and industry, environmental organizations and research institutions, are attending the gathering.

The Danish Prime Minister pointed to the fact that climate change knows no borders saying, "It does not discriminate, it affects us all. And we are here today because we are all committed to take action. That is our common point of departure. The magnitude of the challenge before us is to translate this political will into a strong political approach."

UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said there was unprecedented political momentum for a deal. "World leaders are calling for an agreement that offers serious emission limitation goals and that captures the provision of significant financial and technological support to developing countries. At the same time, Copenhagen will only be a success if it delivers significant and immediate action that begins the day the conference ends." UNFCCC indicated that negotiators must focus on solid and practical proposals that will unleash prompt action on mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries and capacity-building.

De Boer outlined three layers of action that governments must agree to by the end of the conference: (1) fast and effective implementation of immediate action on climate change; (2) ambitious commitments to cut and limit emissions, including start-up funding and a long-term funding commitment; and (3) a long-term shared vision on a low-emissions future for all. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicates that an aggregate emission reduction by industrialized countries of between minus 25% and 40% over 1990 levels would be required by 2020 in order to stave off the worst effects of climate change. If total global emissions can be reduced by at least 50% by 2050, there would be only a 50% chance of avoiding the most catastrophic consequences.

The UNFCCC working groups starting Monday will have six days to conclude negotiations before the Ministerial High Level Segment starts December 16. Ministers will then in turn have two days to take any unresolved issues forward before the more than 100 world leaders that begin arriving the evening of December 17. This means a total of eight negotiating days to prepare a workable package that consists of both immediate and long-term components which leaders can endorse on December 18.

In a related important development, as the COP15 conference begins and while climate skeptics are claiming the international scientific community has falsified climate change science [See WIMS 12/4/09], the U.S. EPA announced that "after a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments it has determined that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. EPA also finds that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat."

EPA indicated in a release that President Obama and Administrator Jackson have publicly stated that they support a legislative solution to the problem of climate change and Congress’ efforts to pass comprehensive climate legislation. However, climate change is threatening public health and welfare, and it is critical that EPA fulfill its obligation to respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that determined that greenhouse gases fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. EPA issued the proposed findings in April 2009 [See WIMS 4/27/09] and held a 60-day public comment period. The agency received more than 380,000 comments, which it said were carefully reviewed and considered during the development of the final findings.

The following are some important links to follow the 2-weeks of what will likely be intense negotiations:

UNFCCC Website - Complete information and documents including all COP15 events live and on demand (click here).

IISD Daily Reporting - The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) providing daily coverage from Copenhagen with The Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) daily reports and online high-resolution digital photos from inside the negotiations and ENB on the Side (ENBOTS) daily reports featuring coverage of selected side events (click here).

BNA World Climate Change Report - BNA is providing complimentary, real-time reporting and analysis of the landmark COP15 event. BNA will offer open access to its World Climate Change Report(R), which contains expert climate change analysis as well as live coverage of COP15, December 4-21, 2009 [registration required] (click here).

U.S State Department COP15 Website - The U.S. Department of State has established a special website to follow the U.S. activities in Copenhagen. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern will lead the U.S. delegation during the two-week conference. Other U.S. departments and agencies will join the Department of State on the delegation, including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Interior, Transportation, and Treasury; the U.S. Agency for International Development; U.S. EPA; the U.S. Trade Representative; and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The U.S. delegation will also include officials from the National Security Council and the White House Council on Environmental Quality; and Members of Congress (click here).

Copenhagen, Denmark COP 15 Website - The website of Denmark and the city of Copenhagen hosting the 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) taking place at Bella Center in Copenhagen from the 7th to the 18th of December, 2009 (click here).

WIMS Climate Change Issue Website - Waste Information & Management Services, Inc. (WIMS), EcoBizPort, Climate Change issue website for extensive links to important climate change information and resources (click here).

Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access a video press briefing from Yvo de Boer (click here). Access links to UNFCCC webcasts, live and on demand (click here). Access a release from EPA (click here). Access EPA's Endangerment website for complete information and background (click here).

Independent Review Of Hacked Emails To Be Complete Spring 2010

Dec 3: The University of East Anglia (UEA) announced that Sir Muir Russell KCB FRSE will head the Independent Review into allegations made against the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) [See WIMS 11/24/09]. The Independent Review will investigate the key allegations that arose from a series of hacked e-mails from CRU. On November 20 it was reported that hundreds of emails were illegally obtained by hacking the server at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at UEA in England. The emails have been posted on the Internet and many climate change opponents are claiming they reveal conspiracy in the scientific community regarding the science behind climate change. According to a release from UEA, The review will:

1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.

2. Review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.

3. Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’) and the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) for the release of data.

4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds.

Sir Muir will have the discretion to amend or add to the terms of reference if he feels necessary, devise his own methods of working, and call on appropriate expertise in order to investigate the allegations fully. The University has asked for the Review to be completed by Spring 2010 and this will be made public along with UEA’s response.

Announcing the Independent Review, Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor said, “The reputation and integrity of UEA is of the upmost importance to us all. We want these allegations about CRU to be examined fully and independently. That is why I am delighted that Sir Muir has agreed to lead the Independent Review and he will have my and the rest of University’s full support.”

Sir Muir Russell, Head of the Independent Review said, “I agreed very willingly to Professor Acton’s request to undertake this Independent Review. Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the University or the Climate Science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find. My first task is to scope the project, gather the information I need and source the additional expertise that will be required in order to investigate fully the allegations that have been made. Once this has happened I will be in a position to confirm timescales for publishing the review.”

In a related matter, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a statement and references to two of its reports. The statement said, "Past controversies over historical temperature trends and access to research data have resurfaced amid a stir over old e-mail exchanges among climate scientists that were stolen from a university in the U.K. Two National Research Council reports in particular address these issues. Guiding principles for maintaining the integrity and accessibility of research data were recommended in a report released earlier this year, and a 2006 report examined how much confidence could be placed in historical surface temperature reconstructions."

NAS referenced its report, Ensuring the Integrity, Accessibility, and Stewardship of Research Data in the Digital Age, which recommends that researchers -- both publicly and privately funded -- make the data and methods underlying their reported results public in a timely manner, except in unusual cases where there is a compelling reason not to do so.

NAS also referenced its report, Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 Years, examined what tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" can tell us about the planet's temperature record, and in particular how much confidence could be placed in a graph that became known as the "hockey stick," which depicted a steep rise in temperatures after a 1,000-year period in the last few decades of the 20th century. NAS said, "The committee that wrote the report found sufficient evidence to say with a high level of confidence that the last decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years. It said less confidence could be placed in reconstructions of temperatures prior to 1600, although proxy data does indicate that many locations are warmer now than they were between A.D. 900 and 1600. Proxy data for periods prior to A.D. 900 are sparse."

Access the release from UEA (click here). Access links to all of the emails (click here). Access the statement from NAS and links to the two referenced reports (click here).

GAO Report On Nuclear Waste Storage & Disposal Options

Dec 2: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Nuclear Waste Management: Key Attributes, Challenges, and Costs for the Yucca Mountain Repository and Two Potential Alternatives (GAO-10-48, November 04, 2009). The report was requested by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman Committee on Environment and Public Works; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D-NV) and John Ensign (D-NV).

According to GAO high-level nuclear waste -- one of the nation's most hazardous substances -- is accumulating at 80 sites in 35 states. The United States has generated 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste and is expected to generate 153,000 metric tons by 2055. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to dispose of the waste in a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. However, the repository is more than a decade behind schedule, and the nuclear waste generally remains at the commercial nuclear reactor sites and DOE sites where it was generated.

The report examines the key attributes, challenges, and costs of the Yucca Mountain repository and the two principal alternatives to a repository that nuclear waste management experts identified: (1) storing the nuclear waste at two centralized locations; and, (2) continuing to store the waste on site where it was generated. GAO developed models of total cost ranges for each alternative using component cost estimates provided by the nuclear waste management experts. However, GAO did not compare these alternatives because of significant differences in their inherent characteristics that could not be quantified.

The Yucca Mountain repository is designed to provide a permanent solution for managing nuclear waste, minimize the uncertainty of future waste safety, and enable DOE to begin fulfilling its legal obligation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to take custody of commercial waste, which began in 1998. However, project delays have led to utility lawsuits that DOE estimates are costing taxpayers about $12.3 billion in damages through 2020 and could cost $500 million per year after 2020, though the outcome of pending litigation may affect the government's total liability. Also, the administration has announced plans to terminate Yucca Mountain and seek alternatives.

Even if DOE continues the program, it must obtain a Nuclear Regulatory Commission construction and operations license, a process likely to be delayed by budget shortfalls. GAO's analysis of DOE's cost projections found that a repository to dispose of 153,000 metric tons would cost from $41 billion to $67 billion (in 2009 present value) over a 143-year period until the repository is closed. Nuclear power rate payers would pay about 80 percent of these costs, and taxpayers would pay about 20 percent.

Centralized storage at two locations provides an alternative that could be implemented within 10 to 30 years, allowing more time to consider final disposal options, nuclear waste to be removed from decommissioned reactor sites, and the government to take custody of commercial nuclear waste, saving billions of dollars in liabilities. However, DOE's statutory authority to provide centralized storage is uncertain, and finding a state willing to host a facility could be extremely challenging. In addition, centralized storage does not provide for final waste disposal, so much of the waste would be transported twice to reach its final destination. Using cost data from experts, GAO estimated the 2009 present value cost of centralized storage of 153,000 metric tons at the end of 100 years to range from $15 billion to $29 billion but increasing to between $23 billion and $81 billion with final geologic disposal.

On-site storage would provide an alternative requiring little change from the status quo, but would face increasing challenges over time. It would also allow time for consideration of final disposal options. The additional time in on-site storage would make the waste safer to handle, reducing risks when waste is transported for final disposal. However, the government is unlikely to take custody of the waste, especially at operating nuclear reactor sites, which could result in significant financial liabilities that would increase over time.

Not taking custody could also intensify public opposition to spent fuel storage site renewals and reactor license extensions, particularly with no plan in place for final waste disposition. In addition, extended on-site storage could introduce possible risks to the safety and security of the waste as the storage systems degrade and the waste decays, potentially requiring new maintenance and security measures. Using cost data from experts, GAO estimated the 2009 present value cost of on-site storage of 153,000 metric tons at the end of 100 years to range from $13 billion to $34 billion but increasing to between $20 billion to $97 billion with final geologic disposal.

Access the complete 84-page report (click here).

Rep. Markey Hearing On "The State of Climate Science"

Dec 2: The House Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global Warming, Chaired by Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) held a hearing on, "The State of Climate Science." Obviously, much of the discussion and questioning from Committee members focused on the November 20 release of hundreds of emails, illegally obtained by hacking the server at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England, which some opponents are claiming reveals a conspiracy in the scientific community regarding the science behind climate change [See WIMS 11/24/09].

Witnesses testifying at the hearing included Dr. John Holdren, the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and formerly a professor at Harvard University and the director of the acclaimed Woods Hole Research Center; and Dr. Jane Lubchenco the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the United States’ leading climate office. Chairman Markey also issued an opening statement.

In his opening statement, Chairman Markey reminded that, ". . .scientists -- including those advising the U.S. government -- have issued warnings about the rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere throughout the last 4 decades. After a report from his science advisory committee, President Lyndon Johnson noted in a 1965 special address to Congress that 'a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels' has altered the composition of the atmosphere. In 1978, Robert White, the first administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), warned that carbon dioxide emissions 'can have consequences for climate that pose a considerable threat to future society.'"

Markey continued saying, "Administration scientists once predicted the impacts of global warming. Now they can confirm them. And, unfortunately, families from New Orleans to Alaska are living with the harsh consequences. Given the upcoming international climate conference in Copenhagen and the continuing work on domestic clean energy legislation in Congress, an update on the administration’s view on the state of climate science is timely. . ."

Holdren said in his 11-page testimony that, "It is well established that climate is changing in the United States and all across the globe. The air and the oceans are warming, mountain glaciers are disappearing, sea ice is shrinking, permafrost is thawing, the great land ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica are losing mass, and sea level is rising. We know the primary cause of these changes beyond any reasonable doubt. It is the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping pollutants from our factories, our buildings, our vehicles, and our power plants; from farming, cement manufacture, and waste disposal; and from deforestation and other forms of land-use change that move carbon out of soils and vegetation and into the atmosphere. . .

"It goes almost without saying that the United States, as the largest contributor to the cumulative additions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and still today the second-largest emitter after China, and as the world’s largest economy and pre-eminent source of scientific and technological innovation, has both the obligation and the opportunity to lead the world in demonstrating that the needed emissions reductions can be achieved in ways that are affordable and consistent with continued economic growth, that create new jobs, and that bring further co-benefits in the form of reduced oil-import dependence and improved air quality. President Obama is going to Copenhagen to underline that the United States is fully committed to assuming this leadership role. The Administration obviously will need the support of the Congress in delivering on this promise. . ."

In her 10-pages of testimony, Lubchenco said, "In the short time that President Obama has been in office, he has made it clear that our choices will be informed by scientific knowledge and that he considers addressing climate change to be a high priority. . . " She highlighted research from the U.S. government landmark report entitled, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (GCCI 2009), prepared under the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

She noted that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007) is a climate science assessment prepared by 152 leading scientists from around the world who served as its authors. It was then reviewed and re-reviewed by more than 600 experts and dozens of governments. She said, ". . .the latest key finding in the GCCI 2009 report: Global warming is unequivocal and is primarily human-induced." Among the highlighted conclusions she cited, global average surface temperature has risen by about 1.5 degreesF since 1900 and is projected to rise another 2-11.5 degreesF by 2100 (IPCC 2007 and GCCI 2009). The current atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is estimated at around 385 ppm, which is higher than the highest point in at least the last 800,000 years (GCCI 2009). In the U.S. she said cited that the U.S. average temperature has risen more than 2 degreesF over the past 50 years and is projected to rise more in the future (GCCI 2009).

Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, statements (click here).

EPA May Grant Ethanol Waiver; But More Testing Needed

Dec 1: U.S. EPA announced that it expects to make a final determination in mid-2010 regarding whether to increase the allowable ethanol content in fuel. In a letter sent today (December 1) to Growth Energy -- a bio fuels industry association that had asked EPA to grant a waiver that would allow for the use of up to 15 percent of ethanol in gasoline -- the Agency said that while not all tests have been completed, "the results of two tests indicate that engines in newer cars likely can handle an ethanol blend higher than the current 10-percent limit." The Agency will decide whether to raise the blending limit when more testing data is available. EPA also announced that it has begun the process to craft the labeling requirements that will be necessary if the blending limit is raised.

In March 2009, Growth Energy requested a waiver to allow for the use of up to 15 percent ethanol in gasoline, an increase of five percent points. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA was required to respond to the waiver request by December 1, 2009. EPA has been evaluating the group’s request and has received a broad range of public comments as part of the administrative rulemaking process. EPA and the Department of Energy also undertook a number of studies to determine whether cars could handle higher ethanol blends. Testing has been proceeding as quickly as possible given the available testing facilities. The current limit on the amount of ethanol that can be blended into a gallon of gasoline is at ten volume percent ethanol (E10) for conventional (non flex-fuel) vehicles. Growth Energy and 54 ethanol manufacturers submitted the application requesting an increase in the amount of ethanol blended into a gallon of gasoline to up to 15 volume percent (E15) on March 6, 2009. EPA conducted an extended comment period that ended on July 20, 2009 [See WIMS 5/15/09].

Despite support for the E15 waiver by 10 Midwestern governors supporting the proposal [See WIMS 7/17/09], the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance). AIAM said, "The consequence of potential equipment malfunctions caused by the use of E15 extends beyond failure to sufficiently control emissions. It will also create a high risk of consumer dissatisfaction due to drivability problems which would needlessly damage product reputation and imperil customer satisfaction with dealer service." The Alliance asked "EPA to deny this waiver application, in whole and in part, because insufficient data are available to determine whether the proposed fuel blend(s) can satisfy the legal requirements under the Clean Air Act section 211(f)(4)." [See WIMS 7/21/09].

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack issued a statement on the ethanol waiver request saying, "We are very encouraged that the results of the tests of E15 in newer model cars have been positive. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) movement towards developing an effective labeling rule sends a strong signal about the future viability of the biofuels industry. Biofuels are a vital component of America's energy future, helping to break our dependence on oil. This commitment reflects the Obama Administration's support for a strong biofuels industry helping to increase income for farmers and jobs in rural America."

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) issued a release supporting EPA's decision to postpone approving any increase in the amount of ethanol allowed in gasoline saying, "More ethanol in gasoline could increase tailpipe pollution or damage older vehicles." UCS said, "The Obama administration is respecting the role of science and resisting industry pressure to put private interests ahead of public health and the environment. Raising ethanol blend percentages without testing what it would do to air quality and vehicle engines is like going in for surgery before getting a diagnosis. It wouldn't be good for the industry or the environment to rush ahead only to find out later that we guessed wrong."

Access a release from EPA (click here). Access links to EPA's letter to petitioners and complete background information on the E15 waiver (click here). Access the statement from USDA (click here). Access a release from UCS (click here).

UN Head Warns Island Nations Against "Perfect" Climate Deal

Now 28: On what he called "the final lap of the years-long marathon to the United Nations climate change summit in Copenhagen," now just 6 days away, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon addressed the Commonwealth summit meeting with small island developing States, held in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago. He warned that holding out for a "perfect" deal at the climate change summit in Copenhagen, December 7-18, could result in there being no agreement at all. He called on all States to get behind a deal that is as ambitious as possible but also has broad international support. He told participants that given their countries were on the frontline of the impact of climate change, it was vital that their voices were heard to try to achieve “a strong, equitable agreement” in the Danish capital.

Speaking to the meeting with the leaders of AOSIS (the Alliance of Small Island States) and Small Island Developing States, (SIDs) he said, “I know the cost of inaction far outweighs the costs of acting today. I commend your call for deep emissions cuts in line with the science. And I support your call for scaled-up resources for urgent adaptation needs as well as mitigation.” Without a deal at the summit, Ban said greenhouse gas emissions would continue to rise and the impact of climate change worldwide would become ever more severe. A deal “must be as ambitious as possible. But to get a deal we need every country on board. We need you on board. The world needs your support at this critical moment.”

The Secretary-General said he recognized the concerns of many small island developing States, particularly about the need to set a long-term goal to keep global temperature increases as low as possible. He said, “Many refer to a 2-degree limit while for you, the most vulnerable countries, a safe level means staying below 1.5 degrees centigrade. That said, we face a simple reality: if we delay for perfection, we risk ending up with nothing -- no agreement at all.”

He indicated that momentum for a deal in Copenhagen, where at least 80 world leaders are expected to attend, was strong and continuing to grow. He said, “The world has never before witnessed this level of political engagement on climate. We will not get a better chance any time soon.” He emphasized that any deal reached in Copenhagen should deliver “immediate, practical results,” including the acceleration of financing of at least $10 billion a year to strengthen resilience and support mitigation measures against climate change in poorer and vulnerable countries.

He concluded, “A deal that will spur action on all key areas of adaptation, mitigation, finance and governance. An ambitious deal that will set a firm deadline for a legally binding treaty as soon as possible in 2010. The stronger the agreement in Copenhagen, the quicker it can be transformed into a legal framework.”

In the meantime, important documents that will form the basis of negotiations and agreements in Copenhagen are beginning to become available. The documents are from the two key committees that will be holding: (1) The tenth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP 10); and (2) The eighth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA 8).

Also as part of the White House announcement on that President Obama will be attending the Copenhagen COP15 meeting [See WIMS 11/25/09], the U.S. State Department has established a special website dedicated solely to COP 15 events, as well as a Facebook page (See links below). The State Department, in coordination with the White House and multiple federal departments and agencies, is organizing and hosting a U.S. Center at UNFCCC COP15 conference. The U.S. Center will host over 70 events during the two-week conference.

One day following the White House announcement, on November 26, China announced that Premier Wen Jiabao will attend the Copenhagen climate summit and that China will commit to reducing its "carbon intensity" by 40 to 45 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. According to a statement from the Chinese government, the State Council said that China is going to reduce the "intensity of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP" in 2020 by 40 to 45 percent compared with the level of 2005. The State Council said, this is "a voluntary action" taken by the Chinese government "based on our own national conditions" and "is a major contribution to the global effort in tackling climate change,"

In a meeting presided over by Premier Wen Jiabao on November 25,the State Council reviewed a national task plan addressing climate change. A press statement released November 26, said the index of carbon dioxide emissions cuts, announced for the first time by China, would be "a binding goal" to be incorporated into China's medium and long-term national social and economic development plans. The announcement said that new measures would be formulated to audit, monitor and assess its implementation. Qi Jianguo, an economic and environmental policy researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told Xinhua that the targets would put "great pressure" on China's development.

Access a release from the UN (click here). Access the statement from Ban (click here). Access a second UN release and link to a second Ban speech of 11/27/09 (click here). Access the AOSIS website (click here). Access the SIDS website (click here). Access links to the AWG-LCA 8 documents (click here). Access links to the AWG-KP 10 documents (click here). Access the State Dept. COP15 website (click here). Access the State Dept. Facebook page (click here). Access a lengthy statement from the Chinese government (click here). Access the China Climate Change Info-Net website for more information (click here).

President Obama Will Go To Copenhagen & Emission Targets

Nov 25: With just 11 days before the start of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP15), the White House announced that President Obama will travel to Copenhagen, Denmark on December 9 to participate in the conference. According to a release, the President "is eager to work with the international community to drive progress toward a comprehensive and operational Copenhagen accord."

The release indicates, the President has worked steadily on behalf of a positive outcome in Copenhagen throughout the year. Based on the President’s work on climate change over the past 10 months -- in the Major Economies Forum, the G20, bilateral discussions and multilateral consultations -- and based on progress made in recent, constructive discussions with China and India’s Leaders, the President believes it is possible to reach a meaningful agreement in Copenhagen. The release states, "The President’s decision to go is a sign of his continuing commitment and leadership to find a global solution to the global threat of climate change, and to lay the foundation for a new, sustainable and prosperous clean energy future."

The White House also announced that, in the context of an "overall deal in Copenhagen that includes robust mitigation contributions from China and the other emerging economies, the President is prepared to put on the table a U.S. emissions reduction target in the range of 17% below 2005 levels in 2020 and ultimately in line with final U.S. energy and climate legislation. In light of the President’s goal to reduce emissions 83% by 2050, the expected pathway set forth in this pending legislation would entail a 30% reduction below 2005 levels in 2025 and a 42% reduction below 2005 in 2030."

The White House said, the "provisional target" is in line with current legislation in both chambers of Congress (i.e. H.R. 2454 & S. 1733) and "demonstrates a significant contribution to a problem that the U.S. has neglected for too long." With less than two weeks to go until the beginning of the Copenhagen conference, the White House said, "it is essential that the countries of the world, led by the major economies, do what it takes to produce a strong, operational agreement that will both launch us on a concerted effort to combat climate change and serve as a stepping stone to a legally binding treaty. The President is working closely with Congress to pass energy and climate legislation as soon as possible."

The White House also announced that a host of Cabinet secretaries and other top officials from across the Administration will travel to Copenhagen for the conference. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson are all scheduled to attend, along with Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley, Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren, and Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Carol Browner.

For the first time, the U.S. delegation will have a U.S. Center at the conference, which they said would provide "a unique and interactive forum to share our story with the world." In addition to working with other countries to advance American interests, U.S. delegates will keynote a series of events highlighting actions by the Obama Administration "to provide domestic and global leadership in the transition to a clean energy economy." Topics will range from energy efficiency investments and global commitments to renewables policy and clean energy jobs.

The schedule and topics of keynote events and speakers are: Wednesday, December 9th: Taking Action at Home, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson; Thursday, December 10th: New Energy Future: the role of public lands in clean energy production and carbon capture, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar; Friday, December 11th: Clean Energy Jobs in a Global Marketplace, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke; Monday, December 14th: Leading in Energy Efficiency and Renewables, Energy Secretary Steven Chu; Tuesday, December 15th: Clean Energy Investments: creating opportunities for rural economies, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack; and, Thursday, December 17th: Backing Up International Agreement with Domestic Action, CEQ Chair Nancy Sutley and Assistant to the President Carol Browner.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, released a brief statement regarding the Obama administration's announcement and said, "I am so pleased that the President is going to Copenhagen to address one of the most pressing issues of our time -- global warming. The goal he announced today, in the range of 17 percent, reflects the work that was done in the House of Representatives and in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. It is realistic, it's smart, and it's credible." The Senate Bill, S. 1733, actually includes a 20% reduction over 2005 levels -- a reduction that Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) and Chair of the Senate Finance Committee that will consider the bill in January, said was "too high." Senator Baucus was the only dissenting Democratic vote when the EPW approved the bill [See WIMS 11/5/09].

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the EPW Committee, commented on the news that President Obama will travel to Copenhagen and said, "I suspect President Obama is making the trip to Copenhagen in order to ‘save' the climate conference. Yet no amount of lofty rhetoric or promises of future commitments can save it. This is due in large part to the fact cap-and-trade legislation in the Senate is dying on the vine, and, as important, recent revelations of leading climate scientists who appear to have manufactured the climate ‘consensus'-revelations that cast doubt over the entire global warming enterprise. Moreover, it's clear that China, India, and the developing world, which will soon be responsible for the vast bulk of greenhouse gas emissions, will not accept mandatory cuts in emissions -- despite entreaties from President Obama. The U.S. Senate has made clear on numerous occasions that unilateral action by the United States is unacceptable, because it will harm our economy and have virtually no effect on climate change."

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he welcomed the announcement that President Barack Obama would be attending the Conference in Copenhagen. UN spokesperson Farhan Haq told reporters, “As more and more heads of State and government confirm their attendance, momentum is building for a successful conclusion to this crucial world gathering. Earlier this month, Ban urged the US to take a leading role in forging a new global pact to combat global warming and said, “No country is more important than the United States in resolving this climate change issue.” In a briefing to the press less than two weeks ahead of the Copenhagen (COP 15) conference, UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer spoke about his expectations for the meeting, which he described as a “historic turning point.” with "no Plan B."

Access a lengthy release from the White House with a listing and links to further information on American action and accomplishments over the last 10 months (click here). Access a release from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access a statement from the UN (click here). Access links to the de Boer briefing video and speaking notes (click here).

Today's full issue of eNewsUSA included more climate-related articles including:

• CBO On The Costs of Reducing Greenhouse-Gas Emissions
• Senator Inhofe Launches "Climategate" Investigation
• India & U.S., Two Largest Democracies, Form "Green Partnership"
• Draft Report Analyzing Vulnerability Of Endangered Species To Climate Change

Click here and we'll send you today's complete report

The Controversy Over Hacked Emails On Climate Change

Nov 23: On November 20 it was reported that hundreds of emails were illegally obtained by hacking the server at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England. The emails have been posted on the Internet and many climate change opponents are claiming they reveal conspiracy in the scientific community regarding the science behind climate change.

On November 23, the University of East Anglia issued a statement saying, "The volume of material published and its piecemeal nature makes it impossible to confirm what proportion is genuine. We took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation and have involved the police in what we consider to be a criminal investigation. The material published relates to the work of our globally-respected Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and other scientists around the world. CRU's published research is, and has always been, fully peer-reviewed by the relevant journals, and is one strand of research underpinning the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous. . ."

As an example, the University highlighted one email which they said they could "confirm is genuine," and which they said has caused "a great deal of ill-informed comment, but has been taken completely out of context and I want to put the record straight." The email reads: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct +is 0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998."

The University comments and emphasizes, "The first thing to point out is that this refers to one diagram -- not a scientific paper -- which was used in the World Meteorological Organization's statement on the status of the global climate in 1999 (WMO-no.913). "The diagram consisted of three curves showing 50-year average temperature variations for the last 1000 years. Each curve referred to a scientific paper and a key gives their details. Climate records consist of actual temperature records from the mid-19th century and proxy data (tree rings, coral, ice cores, etc) which go back much further. The green curve on the diagram included proxy data up to 1960 but only actual temperatures from 1961 onwards. This is what is being discussed in the email. The word 'trick' was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward."

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) issued a statement saying, "Climate science contrarians are using the release of e-mails from several top scientists to attack climate science. Unfortunately for these conspiracy theorists, what the e-mails show are simply scientists at work, grappling with key issues, and displaying the full range of emotions and motivations characteristic of any urgent endeavor. Any suggestions that these e-mails will affect public and policymakers' understanding of climate science give far too much credence to blog chatter and boastful spin from groups opposed to addressing climate change. . . Policymakers and the general public should reject these attacks and not be distracted from building solutions to this urgent threat."

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee and an outspoken critic of climate change science and legislation said in a radio interview on November 21st regarding last weeks announcements that climate change legislation would be put off until Spring, "cap and trade is dead forever." He said, "I told Barbara Boxer [Senate EPW Chair] after all these years. . . I won, you lost. . . get a life." He said the legislation would die a "quiet muffled death." Regarding the emails he said "We have known; not known; suspected that this was happening; we have heard testimony in private from different scientists and others, where they are subduing information they have. We're going to get into the big middle of that even though the issue may be gone; may be dead; the means that they would use. If they would do that on global warming, they would do it on health care or any other issue and that's what has to be exposed. . ."

Among the more than 1,000 climate change-related emails made public, one exchange from 2003, involved contributions from John Holdren, who is now the Director of White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and was then a professor in the Kennedy School of Government and the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University and Director of the independent, nonprofit Woods Hole Research Center in Woods Hole, MA. According to an OSTP note, "That exchange -- between Holdren and a skeptical blogger -- provides an excellent summary of how a person lacking scientific expertise might best arrive at a conclusion about the conflicting data relating to the science of climate change." OSTP has released the entire email exchange (See link below).

Access a report from the New York Times with links to related information (click here). Access links to all of the emails (click here). Access the complete release from University of East Anglia (click here). Access a release from the Union of Concerned Scientists (click here). Access the Senator Inhofe radio interview on the hacked emails (click here, about half way into the recording). Access the Holdren email exchange (click here).

Investor Groups Petition SEC Regarding Climate Risk Disclosure

Nov 23: A supplemental petition submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission by a broad coalition of 20 institutional investors explains that "it’s impossible for investors to adequately assess the risk to their investment money if companies don’t tell them how much climate change and its impacts might affect their financial performance." The petition asks the SEC to provide interpretive guidance outlining climate-related "material risks" -- such as new regulations, physical impacts, new economic and business opportunities and other climate-related trends -- that companies should be disclosing to investors.

Some of the 20 signatories to the petition include leading U.S. and Canadian institutional investors managing more than $1 trillion in assets, including the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), British Columbia Investment Management Corporation of Canada, Pax World Management Corporation, state treasurers from Oregon, North Carolina, Connecticut, Maryland and Vermont and Florida’s Chief Financial Officer.

Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres and director of the $8 trillion Investor Network on Climate Risk, which includes many members who submitted the petition said, “Climate change is without question a material risk to businesses, and ignoring it is a disservice to investors. We need to measure and disclose these risks so that both investors and companies can make financially-sound decisions.”

A release from the groups indicates that the petition echoes several earlier requests to the SEC for guidance on climate risk disclosure. But, they said, "what makes this submission different is a spate of recent regulatory, legislative and scientific developments - including the Environmental Protection Agency’s new mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule – and new economic opportunities that dramatically change the landscape of corporate climate risk disclosure. Congress is also hard at work on climate legislation that would set specific limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other large company facilities. A climate and energy bill was approved by the House in June and is now before the Senate."

The groups indicated that SEC took a large step toward greater corporate disclosure of climate risks last month. It decided then to allow shareholder resolutions seeking information from companies on the financial risks they face from social and environmental issues including climate change. The decision, outlined in SEC Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14E (CF) reverses an SEC rule that prevented investors from directly asking companies about the impacts of climate change and other pressing concerns on their financial bottom lines. The groups said issuing clarifying guidance on climate-related disclosure is fundamental to the SEC’s core mission “to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation.”

Access a release from the groups and link to the petition supplement, full petition, the full list of signers and related information (click here). Access the SEC bulletin (click here).

UN Predicts Copenhagen Accord & Treaty Within 6 Months

Nov 19: November 2009 – With just 17 days left before the United Nations climate change summit in Copenhagen, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Yvo de Boer predicted success for a framework accord including "specific reduction targets from the United States, the only hold-out among industrialized nations, with a formal treaty to follow within six months." At a news conference in New York, de Boer said, “There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that it [Copenhagen] will yield a success.” He said President Barack Obama’s presence in the Danish capital “would make a huge difference.”

As the three main points that must come out of Copenhagen, he cited individualized targets “in black and white” by industrialized States to reduce global warming greenhouse gas emissions by 2020; a list of actions by developing nations; and clear short- and long-term financing to support developing countries on both mitigation and adaptation.

At an informal meeting of the General Assembly held on November 19, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, cited various emission and deforestation reduction targets announced recently by Indonesia, Russia, the Republic of Korea, Brazil, Japan and the European Union, and also voiced confidence in reaching a deal in Copenhagen that sets the stage for a binding treaty as soon as possible in 2010. He put short-term financing from richer nations to the developing countries at $10 billion in fast-track funding annually over the next three years to jump-start low-emission growth, limit deforestation and finance immediate adaptation measures, while medium-term needs are estimated at $100 billion annually through 2020.

De Boer told the Assembly that aggregate pledges made so far by industrialized countries for mid-term reductions still fell short of the target of 20 to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, which the scientific community calls necessary to avoid more disastrous change. He said, “Industrialized countries clearly need to raise their level of ambition.” Also, he said, without resolving the political issues of mitigation and finance, reaching agreement in Copenhagen would be impossible in the battle to curb climate change, with its impact already being felt in droughts, changed rainfall patterns and floods. He said a numerical mid-term target and a commitment to financial support from the U.S. are essential “and I believe it can be done.”

General Assembly President Ali Treki told the same meeting that progress at Copenhagen is not optional – “it is imperative to our very survival.” He later added at a news conference that the world is now conscious of the dangers of climate change for everyone, not just the most vulnerable countries, and that it is in the interest of everyone to “achieve a good result” in Copenhagen.

De Boer indicated further that the conference also needs to launch immediate action for international cooperation on the pressing needs to preserve and sustain forests, he said, “If the lungs of the world collapse, the rest will die.” Finally, governments must agree in a tight deadline to finalize it all into a legal treaty, “and that means no delay, no more long drawn-out process. For all this Copenhagen will be the turning point where talking about action stops and taking action begins.”

Asked about the position of the U.S., which never ratified the 1997 emission reduction treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol, de Boer said, “I think that President Obama has shown incredible courage and leadership. . . He wants a strong domestic policy in this area not just because of climate change, but also because of issues of energy security and energy prices. . . he wants a deal in Copenhagen.” He said "Mr. Obama was now focusing on health care and climate change will come up early next year, but having said that, I am confident that the President of the United States can come to Copenhagen with a target and with a financial commitment.”

Access a lengthy release from the UN with links to the full text of comments and related information (click here).

U.S. & China Sign Memo On Collecting Reliable GHG Data

Nov 19: In addition to other climate change and energy agreements with China signed this week [See WIMS 11/17/09], U.S. EPA and China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) have also formalized a Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) to enhance capacity to address climate change (i.e. greenhouse gas (GHG) measurement, monitoring, reporting). Signing the Memorandum were EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and NDRC Vice Chairman Xie Zhenhua. The MOC was signed by Jackson on November 17, 2009, and commences upon the signature and continues for a period of five years, unless discontinued by one of the parties upon six months notification.

Jackson said, “Cooperation between China and the United States is essential to successfully address climate change. EPA has a long and productive partnership with China on many important environmental issues. This arrangement builds upon our ongoing cooperation to address one of the most significant global challenges of our time. The work that will be supported through this agreement will assist China in enhancing its capacity to collect reliable greenhouse gas emissions data. It also presents an opportunity for EPA to share with China its extensive expertise in measurement and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions.”

According to EPA, initially, cooperation will focus on providing technical support for the development of robust greenhouse gas inventories. In addition, the MOC recognizes the joint work on climate change impacts on economic development, human health, and ecological systems. It also envisions cooperation on education and public awareness of climate change issues. The EPA-NDRC arrangement is one of several implementing measures under the Memorandum of Understanding to Enhance Cooperation on Climate Change, Energy, and the Environment concluded during the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue session in Washington earlier this year in July [See WIMS 7/28/09].

According to the 4-page general agreement, cooperative activities undertaken "may involve" "Capacity building for developing greenhouse gas inventories" as well as education activities, climate change impacts and "Other areas determined by the Participants." The MOC also says, "Participants intend to develop, as needed, detailed work plans according to the cooperation themes and forms intended in this MOC, including key activities and outputs of cooperative projects, scheduling, budget and organizational arrangements, etc. . . EPA intends to support cooperative projects through the provision of needed technical assistance and NDRC or the organization designated by NDRC will provide needed in-kind support."

Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the 4-page MOC (click here). Access links to previous U.S.-China environmental agreements (click here). Access a media report from the Washington Post (click here).

Hearing On International Aspects Of Global Climate Change

Nov 17: The Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), held a hearing "to explore the international aspects of global climate change." Witnesses included representatives from the Council on Foreign Relations; Climate Advisers; Institute for 21st Century Energy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; and the National Foreign Trade Council.

Chairman Bingaman opened the meeting with a statement saying, “Much of the discussion of international climate policy revolves around the United Nations and negotiations to reach an international agreement to reduce emissions. This weekend at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, President Obama and other world leaders decided to delay the goal of reaching a climate change agreement at the next global climate conference in Copenhagen [See WIMS 11/17/09]. Today we will hear from the witnesses on this issue and explore the realms of possibility for an international agreement. . .

“I was particularly pleased to see the U.S.-China Clean Energy Announcements from the White House this morning. The U.S. and China share many of the same energy and climate challenges and a strong bilateral partnership on clean energy, renewables and efficiency could benefit both countries. Finally, we will also hear about U.S. clean technology development and deployment. Effective programs to spur the development and deployment of clean energy technologies abroad -- especially in rapidly developing countries -- are vital to our national goals of mitigating climate change through global action and promoting U.S. competitiveness in future energy technologies.

"Moreover, despite the establishment of multiple interagency coordinating groups -- in laws passed in 1992, 2005, and 2007 – our international energy programs are still inhibited by structural and budgetary obstacles. The result is a duplication of capacity across agencies, under-resourced programs where they do exist, and less-than-optimal outcomes from the nation's international energy technology portfolio. I hope we can develop a better approach to international energy cooperation than simply creating more interagency coordinating groups, if we are to seriously address not only reducing global emissions, but also building robust American energy industries that can compete globally in the 21st century.”

Ranking Member of the Committee, Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) stressed that action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions "must be international in scope to truly address climate change." She said, “Climate change mitigation must be a global effort to be effective, but progress on the international front has been slow and difficult. Those who assume that others will follow if America acts first are ignoring that our actions on civil rights, worker protections and environmental stewardship have often failed to inspire similar progress in many other nations.”

Senator Murkowski said she remains committed to working toward climate change legislation, but cautioned that any solution must not harm the economy or put the United States at a competitive disadvantage with countries whose emissions remain unchecked. She said, “Congress shouldn’t try to pass just any bill to prove that we’re serious about climate change. Until we show the world that it’s possible to reduce emissions and maintain economic growth, I believe it will remain difficult to secure the international commitments that matter most in this effort. Climate change is, quite clearly, a global challenge that demands nothing short of a global solution. As focused as our committee has been on the nuts and bolts of domestic policy, we can’t forget that our actions will make little difference unless the rest of the world is working with us.”

The Council on Foreign Relations testified that, "There is an emerging international political consensus that global emissions should be cut at least in half by midcentury. The International Energy Agency estimates that the United States, Europe,
China, and India will each need to cut their energy-related emissions by 12-15% below business as usual by 2020 and by 34-42% below business as usual by 2030 to get the world on this path." They said, India has been wrongly lumped together with China in climate discussions. Total Indian emissions were, as of 2005, about one quarter of total Chinese emissions. Indian GDP is about 30% of Chinese GDP, and its foreign exchange reserves are barely 10% of those held by China. About 40% of Indians have no access to electricity; almost all Chinese have at least some. And while both countries are vulnerably to climate change, the danger to India is particularly acute."

The Climate Advisers testified that, "The Kyoto negotiations took a decade from start to finish. The Copenhagen process will not require that long, but it will take some months or possibly years more. Second, the negotiations have been affected by significant uncertainty surrounding the shape of future U.S. climate and energy policies. The world learned from the Kyoto negotiations that the United States cannot deliver on new climate commitments unless the president and Congress see eye-to-eye. . . a high-profile outcome from Copenhagen would be politically binding in the sense that nations would commit publicly to specific outcomes. A solid political agreement would send a clear signal about where the international community is heading while also providing concrete guidance to negotiators as they continue the work of crafting a complete international agreement. . ."

The U.S. Chamber testified that, "As this year’s negotiations wind their way to a conclusion in Copenhagen, Denmark, the prospect of a new international deal is not very bright, and it is not hard to see why. Consider that the starting point for discussion is a 50% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Endorsed by G8 leaders, this “50-by-50” goal is among the most aggressive of the 177 emissions reduction scenarios examined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Meeting such a goal would require large and expensive emissions reductions and avoidances, most of which would have to occur in developing countries. Though ultimately non-binding and unenforceable, the long-term vision nonetheless drives expectations about technology readiness and commercial adoption, short-term goals, burden sharing by developing countries, finance and wealth transfers, and technology transfer, issues that are among the most contentious in the international negotiations."

The Chamber said that "Developing countries are pressing the United States and other developed countries to transfer anywhere from 0.5% to 2.0% of their gross domestic product each year to bankroll climate change programs in developing countries. . . At that rate, in 2008 the cost to American taxpayers alone would have been $72 billion to $289 billion."

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace focused its remarks on China and its role in managing climate change. They indicated that President Hu announced to the world China’s climate change goals, notably: Reducing energy intensity by 20% between 2005 and 2010. China has reduced its energy used per unit of GDP by 1.8% in 2006, 4% in 2007, and 4.6% in 2008. In the first half of 2009, China reduced energy intensity by 3.35%. Analysts predict that if China is able to continue at this pace, it will reach its 2010 goal. China’s internal goal is to have 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. Carnegie said, "The question of how to evaluate the data provided by the Chinese government especially in light of the Chinese climate change negotiators clearly stating that China will not accept a carbon cap (which they see as limiting their economic growth potential) and instead will focus on carbon intensity targets."

They said, "The U.S. can have confidence that China is going to do what it says it is going to do because its motivations are internal. And, China is continually improving its ability to enforce its own policies. Improving the process by which Beijing monitors how well it reaches its national goals requires continued technical support. While it is unlikely that China will allow international inspectors, a process that puts its reputation at stake could be helpful. Most important is the recognition of reciprocity. China will push back hard against any policy or initiative that appears to set it in a special category."

The National Foreign Trade Council said it, "does not take a position on specific legislative approaches to climate change. While we broadly support targets to reduce U.S. emissions and an international framework agreement to put countries on low emissions pathways, comprehensive climate legislation addresses issues beyond our mandate and expertise." The Council represents Business Council for Sustainable Energy; Coalition of Service Industries; Emergency Committee for American Trade; Information Technology Industry Council; National Association of Manufacturers; National Foreign Trade Council; Organization for International Investment; Retail Industry Leaders Association; and United States Chamber of Commerce.

Access the hearing website for links to the testimony and a webcast (click here). Access a release from Sen. Bingaman (click here). Access a release from Sen. Murkowski (click here).

Copenhagen Climate Deal Shifts To Keeping The Pressure On

Nov 16: United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged countries to seize the opportunity presented at the climate change conference in Copenhagen to clinch a "political" agreement that will help chart the way forward on a new "legally" binding pact to combat global warming. Ban said, “Opportunity is knocking. It is up to you to open the door.” He was issuing a statement at a two-day closed meeting in the Danish capital to climate negotiators from nearly 40 countries who are preparing ahead of the UN Climate Change Conference set to begin on December 7, and run through December 18. The Secretary-General's message was delivered by Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Now that the pressure appears to be off to negotiate a "legally binding" agreement, and instead settle for a "politically binding" framework [See WIMS 11/16/09], the parties are beginning to be concerned about keeping the negotiating momentum on to reach a legal agreement by some near future deadline. On behalf of the Secretary-General, de Boer said, "Copenhagen will mark a milestone in international efforts to build a more sustainable relationship with our planet. We must seize this opportunity to create a safer and more prosperous future for all, to reduce the emissions that are causing climate change, and to help the most vulnerable adapt to impacts that are already under way. From all corners of the globe, we see unprecedented momentum for governments to act quickly and decisively. Heads of State and Government are now directly involved in climate change discussions to a degree previously unimaginable even a few short years ago."

De Boer outlined what the Secretary-General indicated are the "essential elements of a Copenhagen deal" which he said there is "growing support from the highest levels of government" including: Enhanced action to help the poorest and most vulnerable to adapt; Ambitious emission reduction targets for industrialized countries; Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing countries with the necessary support; Significantly scaled-up financial and technological resources; and An equitable governance structure. He said, such a deal "can safeguard our common future while ushering in powerful new opportunities today for economic growth, enhanced security, and sustainable, climate-resilient development."

He said to the ministers gathered at the meeting, "The world is looking to you to transform those expressions of global political will into tangible outcomes in Copenhagen. The science, the future of the global economy, and the fate of the planet require no less. I applaud the progress that you have made in the negotiations to date. But core political issues remain unresolved. As Ministers, you have a key role to play. We need political agreement on the outline of a deal in Copenhagen to ensure that specific mitigation and adaptation actions can be swiftly implemented as of 2010."

He concluded, "The UN system, for its part, will continue to support governments in achieving an ambitious outcome. Similarly, the United Nations stands ready to “deliver as one” in helping Member States to implement adaptation and mitigation actions on the ground, drawing on the UN's global expertise in energy, water, development and other relevant areas. Let us work together. Let us seize this moment to make Copenhagen the success the world wants and needs it to be."

According to reports from Copenhagen, de Boer is pushing for a treaty to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, within six months after the COP15 conference ends. Other observers and participants are fearful that negotiations may stagnate and drag on for years. According to media reports, some are saying negotiations may go on for years and years; citing for example the Doha negotiations on liberating global trade that after eight years of talks have still not come to a conclusion. Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists told Reuters in an interview, "It raises the specter of having a stalemate on the legally binding part lingering for years to come." He says Copenhagen must set a firm deadline for negotiating a treaty text.

On November 17, Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen speaking to the Ministers at the pre-COP consultations said, "Hard work and political will is the only way forward -- and it is not over yet. I am just back from a meeting with leaders gathered for the APEC Summit in Singapore. We had a very encouraging discussion. And we reminded ourselves of the mandates and the deadline set at Bali. I presented the vision for an ambitious, binding agreement in Copenhagen. An agreement providing for immediate and strong action within all areas of the Bali mandates. And setting us on track for a comprehensive legal framework. I am pleased with the positive response I got. Also the American President endorsed our approach, implying that all developed countries will need to bring strong reduction targets to the negotiating table in Copenhagen."

He continued saying, "My focus remains the real commitments we can obtain for strong and specific action, both in the short and in the longer term. Thus: Real action and a strong mandate and a time frame for further work on the legal framework to be concluded as soon as possible. . . The Copenhagen Agreement should be concrete and binding on countries committing to reach targets, to undertake actions, and to provide agreed finance. Of course, developed countries must take lead by delivering substantial reductions and finance. We need numbers on the table in Copenhagen."

The Prime Minister said, "So why not a legally binding text in Copenhagen? Because the time and the diverging positions of the parties, as well as the number of possible outstanding issues to be resolved, will not allow for it to happen. But that must not be an excuse for inaction. . . What about Kyoto? Is Denmark ready to sacrifice it? Again, the answer is no. Denmark is a party to the Kyoto Protocol and will remain so."

He emphasized a two-part process and said, "Denmark has set out the vision of “one Agreement – two purposes.” Firstly, the Copenhagen Agreement should have a solid content covering all the Bali building blocks: shared vision, mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology and capacity building. This will provide a strong impetus and guidance to further negotiations on a legal framework. Secondly, the agreement should provide for immediate action in all areas, including mitigation, adaptation and finance. Significant up-front finance should support early adaptation and mitigation efforts as well as capacity building and technology cooperation."

UPDATE: Obama & Hu Call For Comprehensive Copenhagen Agreement

Nov 17: In a joint press statement by President Obama and President Hu of China issued from the Great Hall in Beijing, President Hu said, "We agreed to expand our cooperation on climate change, energy, and environment. We also agreed to act on the basis of the principle of the common but differentiated responsibilities and consistent with our respective capabilities to work with other parties concerned to help produce positive outcomes out of the Copenhagen conference. The complementing departments of China and the United States have already signed a number of cooperation agreements, including the MOU to enhanced cooperation on climate change, energy and environment. The two sides have also officially launched the initiative of developing a China-U.S. clean energy research center."

President Obama said, "We meet here at a time when the relationship between the United States and China has never been more important to our collective future. The major challenges of the 21st century, from climate change to nuclear proliferation to economic recovery, are challenges that touch both our nations, and challenges that neither of our nations can solve by acting alone. . . President Hu and I also made progress on the issue of climate change. As the two largest consumers and producers of energy, there can be no solution to this challenge without the efforts of both China and the United States. That's why we've agreed to a series of important new initiatives in this area. As President Hu indicated, we are creating a joint clean energy research center, and have achieved agreements on energy efficiency, renewable energy, cleaner uses of coal, electric vehicles, and shale gas.

"We also agreed to work toward a successful outcome in Copenhagen. Our aim there, in support of what Prime Minister Rasmussen of Denmark is trying to achieve, is not a partial accord or a political declaration, but rather an accord that covers all of the issues in the negotiations, and one that has immediate operational effect. This kind of comprehensive agreement would be an important step forward in the effort to rally the world around a solution to our climate challenge. And we agreed that each of us would take significant mitigation actions and stand behind these commitments."

In the official U.S.-China Statement that was released, Item V indicates in part, "Regarding the upcoming Copenhagen Conference, both sides agree on the importance of actively furthering the full, effective and sustained implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in accordance with the Bali Action Plan. The United States and China, consistent with their national circumstances, resolve to take significant mitigation actions and recognize the important role that their countries play in promoting a sustainable outcome that will strengthen the world’s ability to combat climate change. The two sides resolve to stand behind these commitments.

"In this context both sides believe that, while striving for final legal agreement, an agreed outcome at Copenhagen should, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, include emission reduction targets of developed countries and nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries. The outcome should also substantially scale up financial assistance to developing countries, promote technology development, dissemination and transfer, pay particular attention to the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable to adapt to climate change, promote steps to preserve and enhance forests, and provide for full transparency with respect to the implementation of mitigation measures and provision of financial, technology and capacity building support. The two sides are committed to working together and with other countries in the weeks ahead for a successful outcome at Copenhagen."

Access a release from the UN (click here). Access the full text of the Secretary-General's comments (click here). Access a report from the Danish COP15 website on a possible stalemate in the negotiations and links to related articles (click here). Access the complete text of the Prime Minister's address (click here). Access the complete joint Obama-Hu press statement (click here). Access the official U.S.-China Statement (click here).